Literal or Symbolic?...

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_GreyPilgrim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure. I always receive on bended knee, in true adoration and thanksgiving.

Jon
Greetings Jon, your point is well taken. What I meant to clarify in regards to “Adoration”, Do you pray before the Eucharist on bended knee when the blessed sacrament is exposed, as when we Catholics go to Jesus and pray before His presence in the blessed sacrament, when we obey Jesus to “pray with me one hour?” in His presence? In the same faith as John of Damascus?
 
Fulton J. Sheen

“When the Apostles and the Church later on, would obey Our Lord’s words to renew the Memorial and to eat and drink of Him, the Body and Blood would not be that of the Physical Christ then before them, but that of the glorified Christ in heaven Who continually makes intercession for sinners. The Salvation of the Cross, being sovereign and eternal, is thus applied and actualized in the course of time by the heavenly Christ.”

“When the Lord, after He changed the bread and wine to His Body and Blood, told His Apostles to eat and drink, He was doing for the soul of man what food and drink do for the body.”

To call Jesus Memorial Sacrifice as a drama which played only once as an incident in history as if a memorial of an assisinated president, grossly down plays Jesus ongoing Redemptive death and Resurrection that brings about the Redemption of Salvation for “All” humanity, until “He comes again”.

St. Paul writes of the mystery of the mystical body of Christ

2Corinthians 5:13For if we are out of our minds,* it is for God; if we are rational, it is for you.

15He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

16Consequently,* from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer.

17 So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. 18* And all this is from God,
 
Greetings Jon, your point is well taken. What I meant to clarify in regards to “Adoration”, Do you pray before the Eucharist on bended knee when the blessed sacrament is exposed, as when we Catholics go to Jesus and pray before His presence in the blessed sacrament, when we obey Jesus to “pray with me one hour?” in His presence? In the same faith as John of Damascus?
We certainly can. It hasn’t been the practice of Lutherans of Eucharistic adoration outside the sacramental act, but it isn’t forbidden either. When I enter a Catholic Church, and even an Anglican Church where this is done, I offer this kind of reverence, as I recognize His presence in both settings. And therefore, I would never criticize Catholics for their laudable Eucharistic piety.

Jon
 
We certainly can. It hasn’t been the practice of Lutherans of Eucharistic adoration outside the sacramental act, but it isn’t forbidden either. When I enter a Catholic Church, and even an Anglican Church where this is done, I offer this kind of reverence, as I recognize His presence in both settings. And therefore, I would never criticize Catholics for their laudable Eucharistic piety.

Jon
I love this post. Thank you.
 
We certainly can. It hasn’t been the practice of Lutherans of Eucharistic adoration outside the sacramental act, but it isn’t forbidden either. When I enter a Catholic Church, and even an Anglican Church where this is done, I offer this kind of reverence, as I recognize His presence in both settings. And therefore, I would never criticize Catholics for their laudable Eucharistic piety.

Jon
Peace be with you Jon… I would have to agree with you that the practice of “Adoration” is not the practice of Lutherans. But when you say “outside the sacramental act”, I don’t believe you are referring the benediction and exposition of the blessed Sacrament as being “outside of the sacramental act?” And that Lutherans reverence the presence of Christ during Mass only, but do not forbid the act of “adoration” before the blessed Sacrament?

I respectfully honor your position, but I am confused in general among Lutherans point of view of “adoration” before the blessed Sacrament. Is it accepted, practiced among Lutherans in general?
 
Guanophore was right, I had already answered your question…I can only imagine that you view my answer as a dodge b/c I only did 90% of the work. So here is the previous answer:

I am sorry that you find this confusing…here’s how you can tell the difference:

If it looks like a human body, has weight like a human body, has features of a human body (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso etc.), can be touched etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc. …then it is real flesh and blood.

If it looks like bread, has the weight of a loaf of bread, is made of baked flour and other ingredients (you know like eggs, milk, salt), covered with a crust etc. …then it is bread and could only be symbolic of human flesh.

I realize that I could have supplied a much more detailed list of features to allow you to distinguish between flesh and bread, but this isn’t rocket science. The above should be sufficient to enable you to sort through your confusion. Good luck…I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually.

here is the other 10% of the work:

If you put yourself in the sandals of the beloved disciple that day and looked up at Jesus hanging on the cross you would have seen something that “looks like a human body, has features of a human body (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso etc.), can be touched etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc”…and so the answer would be “real flesh and blood”. I don’t know about you, but given the choice of “literal” or “symbolic” I would say real flesh and blood" = literal flesh. Now, was that so hard?

BTW I have never encountered a person who thought symbolic flesh was hung on the cross that day…I so I find your question odd at best. I do note that certain Gnostics may have argued that a phantom body hung on the cross that day… but that wouldn’t be a symbolic body, it would be a phantom body. They would have urged an eye witness to disregard what their senses told them and understand that it wasn’t an actual body that was hanging on the cross…it was only that there appeared to be body on the cross. The only modern thing close to that position that I can recall is: someone might urge me to disregard what my senses tell me and understand that it isn’t actual bread that is sitting on the altar…it is only that there appears to be bread on the altar.
Therefore, since Jesus said that the bread was His flesh, and the wine His blood, He must not have given his literal blood and flesh for the life of the world, but symbolic flesh and blood. Maybe the Muslims are right, they say Jesus survived the crucifixion, and travelled to India with his Mother after the Passover. 😉
 
If literal, then answer this:

**Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no? **
Hey, I like the tangent you’re taking here.

The thread finished off with the question for Radical as to how he would believe the bread is indeed Jesus Christ?

Lyrical said that Radical would believe it was really Jesus if He saw Christ the bread become Christ or something along those lines.

Would Radical partake in communion where the bread turns to flesh (and it is ascertained that it is indeed human flesh) dripping with blood and would he drink the blood? How would He cope with the command to eat my flesh and drink my blood? Or maybe he would walk away - same as the disciples who left :).
 
I don’t know why you and Lyrikal have such a hard time seeing the difference between to the two claims. Here are the two scenarios that we are contemplating:

Scenario One (the Jesus Scenario):

Jesus is standing in front of us (you, a non-believer and me) in a room. Like Thomas we can see his body, talk to him and touch his wounds. We are also blessed in that Jesus has healed a leper in front of our eyes. The claim is that Jesus is both man and God.

Scenario Two (the Eucharist Scenario):

The Catholic Eucharist (the bread after consecration) is sitting in front of us (you, a non-believer and me) on the altar. The claim is that the substance of the bread is not present and that the substance of Christ’s body is present.

That one claim talks about “substances” and the other doesn’t should give you a hint that the claims are not of the same type. Anyhow, I’ll enumerate some of the differences (in the process I’ll attribute to you what I believe are standard Catholic beliefs…sorry if they are not yours):

Difference 1:

In the Jesus Scenario everyone agrees that the human body of Jesus is really present (based on what we sense). In contrast, in the Eucharist Scenario two of us agree that the human body of Jesus is not really present and that bread is really present (based on what we sense)…you disagree, b/c you have changed your approach.

Difference 2:

In the Jesus Scenario you and I agree that a miracle has occured (based on what we sense…symptoms of leprosy were there and are now gone…the non-believer will agree that his senses reported symptoms of leprosy that were there and that are now gone, but he will likely look for an alternate explanation). In contrast, in the Eucharist Scenario two of us agree that no miracle has occured (based on what we sense)…you disagree…b/c you have changed your approach and assert that a miracle has occured despite what you sense.

Difference 3:

In the Jesus Scenario you and I agree that the presence of a human body does not preclude the presence of a supernatural being/nature in front of us too (besides Jesus’s divine/human nature thing we could refer to demon possession)…if the non-believer believed in demon possession I don’t know why he would think that the presence of Christ’s human body would preclude the existence of a divine(supernatural) nature (In any event, besides Mormons who attribute a grand body to God, I don’t know of any one who would expect that the presence of God (or his divine nature) must be detectable by human senses)… I expect all three of us would be in agreement. In the Eucharist Scenario, you declare that the real presence of Christ’s body precludes the real presence of bread (despite what is sensed) b/c a transubstantaition has occured (again you have changed your approach).

I could name some more differences, but surely three dramatic differences should be enough to show that you are not merely comparing apples to oranges, but actually you are comparing apples to orangutans.
Then please tell us what Jesus meant when He said at the last supper : “This is my body…eat my blood…drink”. What was all that about?

Why would He give His body to eat? Bear in mind that there was no preparation or intimation anywhere in the synoptics regarding this sudden departure from passover rite.

As a matter of fact, most of what Jesus said, one can make sense of, but this one, what is all that about?

Why did He give that command at all? From out of nowhere.

He was standing there before them (Body and Soul) and yet He says of the bread this is my body. So the apostles were eating His body right there based on the power of His words.
 
Therefore, since Jesus said that the bread was His flesh, and the wine His blood, He must not have given his literal blood and flesh for the life of the world, but symbolic flesh and blood. Maybe the Muslims are right, they say Jesus survived the crucifixion, and travelled to India with his Mother after the Passover. 😉
This is a non sequitur at best and flame bait at worst.
 
Therefore, since Jesus said that the bread was His flesh, and the wine His blood,…
you mean at the last supper or at the bread of life discourse?
He must not have given his literal blood and flesh for the life of the world, but symbolic flesh and blood.
you mean at the cross?

The cross is where he actually gave his body and blood for the life of the world…the Lord’s supper is a symbolic ritual pointing to the actual offering…remembering the actual offering. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning behind your use of “must” in “He must not have given his literal blood…” I find it to be an extremely odd and unfounded assertion
 
Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?
Literal.

And it’s literally Him in the Eucharist as well.
 
You indicate the sentence where I identify it as a symbolic memorial.
  • If Christ wanted Consecrated Bread/Wine to be Symbolic, or a Memorial, he would have SAID SO. That is the point you are avoiding, for your opinion.*
    This is a worthless argument that is immediately discarded every time it’s brought up. We’ve all gone here way too many times; why revisit it one more time? Don’t even bother. Stick to complaints that at least have some appearance of legitimacy.
  • Why do you always argue, attack Us when we respond properly? We’ve been Growing for 2,000 years: 1.3 Billion now, same Beautiful, ideal Sacraments, Dogmas, Liturgies: an incredible Blessing and Gift of God to us. Ought to Try us, Listen to our Answers: If Christ wanteed Consecrated Bread Wine to be a Symbol or memorial, Why didn’t he say so? Please answer, or show us Your thinking. *
    Triumphalism doesn’t look good on you. This is the kind of disrespect I was talking about. You can’t do this. I expect an apology and a retraction.
No, you’re mistaken. Despite not being Catholic, I do know what I’m talking about. You’ll do well to wrap your head around that. Then why do you Show you know what you’re talking about, and respect Us. Transubstantiation is a big complicated concept. What do You feel Consecrated Bread/Wine are? Not Real Pressence Christ? Why?

Yes, you will.

Don’t disrespect ideas and beliefs of non-Catholic Christians, of Jews, or of anyone or anything else that might come up in your explorations. Or your search for an argument, whatever it is you’re doing. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that in your ignorance, you aren’t entirely aware of what you’re doing.

I wasn’t forwarding a reality-based argument against transubstantiation. I was making a point about how you interact with other Christians that happen to be non-Catholic, but I suppose it failed to land.

If by “it” you mean “the bread and the cup,” we actually agree that this was not His literal flesh. We do, however, say it was different types of non-literal flesh. I say it was a symbolic memorial, which is different from literal flesh, and you say it was transubstantiated flesh/blood/soul/divinity in substance only but not its accidents, which is also different from literal flesh.

If you’re talking about Jesus’ body that actually hung on the cross, was resurrected, and ascended into heaven, we do have a bit more agreement there. But that’s not what this thread’s really about, is it?

I won’t do it until you read through a new list of things I need you to do. First, I need an apology and a retraction of the disrespect and triumphalism you’ve shown to this point. Second, I need you to promise that you’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again- and you know I’ll hold you to that. Third, we need to wrap up the question that you asked and the answer I gave, just to make sure the thing I communicated to you is the thing that you are comprehending.
*Why do you always demand apologies, Never give them? Peace: The Lord be with You. *
If all that happens, we can get into John 6.
We aren’t “Triumphalist”; it’s against our Nature. Why do you not respect our 2000 years Unbiased Knowledge, always searching for Why’s and The Knowledgeable Answers?
 
Therefore, since Jesus said that the bread was His flesh, and the wine His blood, He must not have given his literal blood and flesh for the life of the world, but symbolic flesh and blood. Maybe the Muslims are right, they say Jesus survived the crucifixion, and travelled to India with his Mother after the Passover. 😉
Don’t think Christ Died on the Cross? Isn’t His Blood and Biblically identical Scourging marks on the Shroud of Turin? Proven Early rare Syrian weave: First Century. Tried the Shroud of Turin Science Site? Think the Eucharist is just symbolic? what about Many Science Verified authentic Eucharistc Miracles? Please answer. Bless you.
 
Then please tell us what Jesus meant when He said at the last supper : “This is my body…eat my blood…drink”. What was all that about?
We’re looking at a Passover Seder, which has a ton of food-oriented symbolism. This symbolism isn’t meaningless, rote, or any other disparaging term you might choose for it- this is one of the most important nights of the year for Jews (look around the table- Jesus and His disciples, all Jews).

Speaking more specifically to food-oriented symbolism, let’s take a look at the specific symbolic foods that Jesus chose, starting with the Matzo.

Matzo means unleavened bread. Different kinds of symbolic meanings are attached to it at different parts of the meal. More toward the beginning of the meal (I’m talking about Dayenu territory here), it symbolizes the affliction and slavery of Egypt, connections can be made between striations on the bread and striations on the back of a slave, and the unleavened bread eaten by Hebrew slaves is called to mind. As with all such symbolism during this meal, the term “anamnesis” should be close to the front of your mind- it is a “remembrance,” but not just a recollection of a memory. These things are called to mind in such a way that every Jew participating in the Seder considers themselves as if they were (in succession) a Jew enslaved in Egypt, a Jew being called and led out of Egypt, and a various other points, a Jew engaging in other blessings of God, other sufferings, and other notable times of deliverance. They obviously don’t believe there’s dozens of “substance” changes that are happening throughout the meal, but it is a bit of an insult to call this “just” a symbolic memorial, or “merely” a pointless thing that doesn’t mean anything. Doing so displays an unacceptable level of ignorance with regard to what Jesus and His disciples were doing that night, as well as an ignorance for many centuries of Jewish tradition that led up to this point.

Moving on with the Matzo, its place in the Seder makes it the symbol of transition from the bitterness of slavery in Egypt to the sweetness of physical, political, and religious freedom after leaving Egypt. And finally, leaven has always been closely associated with sin within Judaism, so the lack of leaven is a very straightforward representation of a lack of sin on the part of Jesus and it symbolizes “poor man’s bread” at early points in the Seder as well as humility and humbleness later on.

On to the cup. Exactly which cup he chose is unclear, and we don’t even know if there were a total of 3, 4, or 5 cups used in this Seder. This one happened near the middle of a 4-century period of transition in which the number of cups in any given Seder was not well-standardized; that wasn’t accomplished until the earliest part of the fourth century. But there are some general things that can always be said about the cups, no matter when you’re looking at or how many of them you’re looking at.

The cup is primarily associated with Exodus 6, particularly the phrases “I will bring out,” “I will deliver,” “I will redeem,” and “I will take/release” (has to do with bringing them into the land). Variations aside, we’re looking at Exodus 6:6-7 in every possible scenario and we’re looking at a group of Jews with God’s deliverance and redemption held in more careful consideration than at any other night of the year.

This is what led into Jesus saying “This is my body…eat, this is my blood…drink, do this in remembrance (anamnesin) of me.” And Jesus’ disciples did know what anamnesis was all about- they did it every year, and it just so happens they were in the middle of doing a lot of it on that night. But what is this remembrance all about? That’s pretty easy, once you put it in context. He was making a tangible connection between Jewish Passover tradition and Christian tradition going forward. He was indicating that the things symbolized by the bread and the wine are fulfilled in Him- the bread symbolizes affliction and a progression toward freedom, and His body (about to be sacrificed on the Cross) is the fulfillment of a more permanent, more universal progression from suffering to freedom. The wine symbolizes tremendous acts of God in Jewish history where He takes His chosen people, delivers them, brings them out, redeems them, and takes them into their God-given inheritance. Jesus’ blood is what the type is pointing toward- by His blood we are redeemed, even the Gentiles, by His blood we are delivered from sin and taken out of bondage to it, the new covenant is in His blood. Jesus is taking a couple of the symbolic elements most central to the Seder and saying “These symbols point to me.” No, no, no, don’t look down at the symbolic food in front of you. Yes, it’s important, but it’s a type just like it’s always been. Look up. Look at the Savior- He just said something extremely important about who He is. He’s not identifying the symbolic elements as things that were substantially changed without accidental changes (all of which is foreign to that place and time). He’s not instituting vessels of “sacramental grace” that will pour grace into the vessel of your body. If you’re a Jewish disciple of Jesus at this place and time, these ideas don’t even exist- superimposing it on their understanding screams “anachronism.” But if you’re a disciple of Jesus participating in the Last Supper with Him, you do know quite a bit about anamnesis. You know all about remembrance. And you definitely know what Jesus just said about Himself- this is tantamount to saying “I am God,” or at least a claim to have key attributes of God along with the ability to carry out every kind of redemptive act that was talked about all through the Seder. This is the context that lets you understand what Jesus’ disciples understood.

Of course, you don’t go anywhere near this if you’re anti-Semitic. Judaism can’t be part of your contextual process if you hate Jews.
 
Peace be with you Jon… I would have to agree with you that the practice of “Adoration” is not the practice of Lutherans. But when you say “outside the sacramental act”, I don’t believe you are referring the benediction and exposition of the blessed Sacrament as being “outside of the sacramental act?” And that Lutherans reverence the presence of Christ during Mass only, but do not forbid the act of “adoration” before the blessed Sacrament?
And peace also with you, my friend.

Let me try to clarify. During the sacramental act, Lutherans do practice adoration. For the most part, we kneel when we receive, and many make the sign of the cross. Generally, the reserved sacrament is not displayed in a monstrance, although some parishes have it at the altar in an aumbrey. In those cases when it is, Lutherans will show the due reverence for His real presence. In most parishes, however, if properly done, the reliquae is ordinarily consumed, with enough left to commune those unable to attend.

When I say that Eucharistic Adoration is not a general practice in Lutheran tradition, I mean we generally do not have Adoration Chapels, and the like. Our focus is on Christ’s command regarding the sacrament, that being to eat and drink.
I respectfully honor your position, but I am confused in general among Lutherans point of view of “adoration” before the blessed Sacrament. Is it accepted, practiced among Lutherans in general?
It generally is not practiced, as I said above, but neither is it forbidden.

Jon
 
I can see that you did edit this post to some extent, but you’re going to have to clean it up quite a bit and maybe rethink some of the things you’re responding to that are directed more specifically at the OP. For a good bit of it, I at least want to wait and see how he responds before branching it out any more.

While you’re looking at that, though, could you tell me this? If Jesus wanted His disciples to know that the bread and cup were conduits of sacramental grace, why didn’t He just tell them? The implied answer, of course, is that they weren’t conduits of sacramental grace. And the disciples couldn’t have possibly come up with that, whereas they could have easily come up with “symbolic memorial”…this is a fairly important distinction. But I’m still curious about what you’ll say.
 
Howdy Pilgrim,I did answers quite plainly in thread 929 On real presence :“I have stated on some thread above “I believe He came and died and rose again in the flesh””
 
Well, getting back to the OP’s original question…

The issue of whether Christ’s body and blood was truly present on the Cross (or is present in the Eucharist) was raised by the Gnostics toward the end of the 1st century A.D. They held that Christ was not physically present on the Cross, but only appeared to be present - that his presence was an illusion. As a result they also did not accept Christ’s True Presence in the Eucharist. This heresy, which was called Docetism, was quickly addressed by the Church. There is some indication that the Gospel of St. John, and his pastoral letters, which were written around the time this heresy arose, were written in part to refute this heresy. Early Church fathers, such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Tertullian, also wrote against Docetism.

This is just a good example of there not being any new heresies, just new people coming up with old (and discredited) ideas that will lead them astray.

Yours in Christ,
Thank-you for that info. Now can you separate the two ,flesh on the cross and flesh in the bread ? Did the Docetists do this ? I think they lumped it all together ,which then does not help us ,that is Ignatius does not directly address RP per say ,but definitely the heresy of Docetism.
 
So I will assume, since Radical can’t help but give a rant instead of a simple one word answer, that he is implying that it was Jesus’ literal flesh that He offered on the cross for the life of the world.

So it was His literal flesh.

Now here’s my follow-up:

** Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?**
The whole of John 6 is NOT RP but “Believe on him whom he hath sent” vs 29, “do not seek me for bread” Vs 26 and “believe on him for everlasting life”, vs40. He also began the whole discourse with bread eating (himself implied)) vs. 35.The benefits -no more hunger and you won’t die (vs.50). When I did communion as a Catholic I still got hungry and had a big meal after mass. Some of my Catholic friends have also died… The figurative speech of “eating” is well laid early for the entire discourse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top